Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pension Trust Fund For Operating Engineers v. D P Crushing

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 14, 2012

PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS; F.G. CROSTHWAITE AND
RUSSELL E. BURNS, AS TRUSTEES,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
D P CRUSHING, INC., AKA DP CRUSHING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND DAVID
ARTHUR PILE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DBA D P CONSTRUCTION, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, AND
DOES 1-20,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donna M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Complaint Filed: 6/27/12 Judge: Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 6(b) and CIV. L.R. 6.1, Plaintiffs Pension Plan for 19 Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, F.G. Crosthwaite, and Russell E. Burns 20 ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendants DP Crushing, Inc, aka DP Crushing, Inc., a California corporation; 21 and David Arthur Pile, individually, and dba D P Construction, a sole proprietorship 22 ("Defendants") hereby stipulate as follows: 23

1. The instant action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 24 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, 25 money damages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. 26

2. A Complaint was filed in this matter on June 27, 2012, to recover withdrawal 27 liability allegedly owed by Defendants, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 28 of 1974 (ERISA) as amended by the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 2 (MPPAA). 3

3. Service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendants was effectuated on June 29, 2012. Proofs of Services of Summons were filed with the Court on July 16, 2012. (Docket No. 7) 5

4. In the interest of minimizing costs as well as the Court's time and resources, the 6 defendants have provided documentation that may lead to resolution of the action, or portions 7 thereof, without the need for litigation, and plaintiffs need further time to analyze the documents. 8

Accordingly, the parties hereby request and stipulate that the Defendants shall have until October 9 30, 2012, to respond to the Complaint. 10

5. The requested extension will modify the Court's Order docketed on June 27, 2012. (Docket No. 3) The parties respectfully request that the Case Management Conference currently 12 scheduled for September 26, 2012, and all of its associated deadlines, be continued for 60 days to 13 allow sufficient time for plaintiffs to review defendants' documentation and request any further 14 information and/or documentation necessary. By allowing sufficient time to complete the review, 15 the parties intend to attempt to resolve the litigation in whole or in part. If such resolution is not 16 possible, defendants will then to respond to the Complaint, and the parties will hold the required 17 "meet and confer" and ADR telephone conference, and prepare a CMC Statement in advance of 18 the Case Management Conference. 19 6. Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate to the extension of deadlines 20 and respectfully request the Court to extend the deadlines as follows: 21

Prior Date New Date Event Governing Rule 3 9/5/12 11/14/12 Last day to:  meet and confer re initial disclosures, F.R.Civ.P. 26(f) (Dkt # 3) early settlement, ADR process ADR L.R. 3.5 selection, and discovery plan L.R.3-5 5  file ADR Certification signed by parties 6 and counsel Civil L.R. 16-8 (b)  file either Stipulation to ADR Process ADR L.R. 3-5(b) or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Civil L.R. 16-8 (c) Conference ADR L.R. 3-5(b)-(c) 9/19/12 11/28/12 Last day to file Rule 26(f) Report, complete F.R.Civ.P. 26(a) (1) initial disclosures or state objection in Rule Civil L.R . 16-9 10 (Dkt #3) 26(f) Report and file Case Management Statement per Standing Order re Contents of 11 Joint Case Management Statement 9/26/12 12/5/12 Initial Case Management Conference Civil L.R . 16-10 13 at 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm 14 (Dkt #3) 15 16

7. The parties believe that an extension of the deadlines promotes judicial economy and will help effectuate a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 1.

Dated: August 31, 2012 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION By: /s/ Julie A. Ostil Julie A. Ostil Counsel for Plaintiffs Dated: September 10, 2012 MAGARIAN LAW LLP 24 By: /s/ Krista L. DiMercurio Krista L. DiMercurio, Attorney at Law

Defendants DP Crushing, Inc, aka DP Crushing, Inc., a California corporation; and David Arthur Pile, Individually, and dba D P Construction, a sole proprietorship

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant has until October 30, 2012 to file a response to the Complaint. The currently set Case 5 Management Conference is hereby continued to December 5, 2012 at 1:30 pm. All related 6 deadlines are extended as specified above. S I

IT IS SO ORDERED

20120914

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.